The Andrew Johnson alcoholism debate is the dispute, originally conducted amongst the general public, and now typically a question for historians, about whether or not Andrew Johnson, the 17th president of the United States, drank to excess. There is no question that Andrew Johnson consumed alcohol (as would have been typical for any Tennessean of his era and station); the debate concerns whether or not he was governing drunk, how alcohol may have altered his personality and disrupted his relationships, and if, when, or how it affected his political standing, and even his current bottom-quartile historical assessment. Less so today, but in his own time, Johnson's alleged drinking contributed substantially to how his peers evaluated his "attributes of mind, character, and speech...where the good ruler is temperate, Johnson is an inebriate; where the good ruler is selfless, Johnson is self-regarding; where the good ruler is eloquent, Johnson is a rank demagogue...behind all these assumptions is the still and silent image of the Great Emancipator, but that is another story."[2]
All that said, the Andrew Johnson alcoholism debate may be a case of questions without answers. Per historian Annette Gordon-Reed, "We will probably never know the extent to which alcohol was a part of Johnson's life. Not all alcoholics appear drunk in public, and his relatively solitary existence—his family was almost never with him and he had few friends—was exactly the kind of setup that allowed for unobtrusive drinking that could become a problem in a time of great emotional and physical stress."[3]
We tell them we would sooner have Andy Johnson drunk than Jeff. Davis sober, or John Breckenridge either, if he could be ever found sober.
— Rev. Dr. Hancock's Temperance Address, New York, June 1865, Buffalo Advocate